Tell me about it. I now operate a policy of 'least harm'. In general I never drink. I live a long way away from my family so it's easy to stick to (and my friends understand and are cool with it). My family, on the other hand, automatically assume religion is somehow controlling my actions when I decline a drink and they always feel the need to have an 'intervention'. I've explained in depth why I don't want to drink but it's no use. My mother (for reasons I won't go into) hates religion deeply and I can see the heartbreak in her eyes when she suspects I am religious. So, when I'm with my family (a few times a year, not often) I initially decline a drink until doing so causes suffering, then I take a beer and make it last all night. One small bottle of beer stretched over many hours doesn't have much effect BUT obviously it's a breach of the fifth precept.

Hi Mawkish
Hang in there mate. At some point, perhaps not now, you'll need to look at making a stand and get your parents to respect your decisions.
metta

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

In order to make this into a more idiomatic English, we have to start from the end: "the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider"

So what then does the precept say? It says: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider (or, alcoholic drinks).

This is the literal meaning of the precept. Not to abstain from the drinks, but to abstain from the condition of intoxication.

You may say that as soon as you drink, you will get intoxicated, so that the wise thing is to abstain from the drinks in order to abstain from intoxication. I fully agree on this point. The sensible thing is not to get drunk, and in order not to get drunk it is wise not to drink.

But if you know yourself so well that you know that you can take a small glass of wine or beer without getting drunk - and stop there! - the precept is definitely not broken.

In order to make this into a more idiomatic English, we have to start from the end: "the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider"

So what then does the precept say? It says: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider (or, alcoholic drinks).

This is the literal meaning of the precept. Not to abstain from the drinks, but to abstain from the condition of intoxication.

You may say that as soon as you drink, you will get intoxicated, so that the wise thing is to abstain from the drinks in order to abstain from intoxication. I fully agree on this point. The sensible thing is not to get drunk, and in order not to get drunk it is wise not to drink.

But if you know yourself so well that you know that you can take a small glass of wine or beer without getting drunk - and stop there! - the precept is definitely not broken.

You sir, have just won the internet. Your lifetime supply of dhamma-munchies should be arriving any time.

enkidu wrote:As has probably been said countless times before, we easily rationalize allowances for our attachments.

I think it's very important to, for the most part, give up alcohols and other things. The reason I ask is because it is so culturally engrained that sometimes NOT having a drink would be rude. Or perhaps you're in a place like Italy where the default is to drink a small amount of alcohol. I don't think social drinking would be proper, nor would getting drunk.

Kare wrote:So what then does the precept say? It says: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider (or, alcoholic drinks).

This is the literal meaning of the precept. Not to abstain from the drinks, but to abstain from the condition of intoxication.

I'm skeptical about this translation of the traditional precept language. Maybe it's not just that sura and meraya cause pamada (which this translation presupposes), but rather that sura and meraya go hand-in-hand with pamada by necessity and are inextricably linked together, and that that reality will always be the thana from which to abstain? Which might read something like this: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness and beer and cider (one unit, one thana). I don't know, I'm no Pali scholar, but my translation alternative doesn't appear to insert elements that aren't plainly there.

In any case, if discerning the true meaning of the traditional precept language is as easy as chopping up the root words and putting them back together with English translations, then I would like to know where the "caused by" part comes from in the translation offered in the quote above.

adamposey wrote:I think it's very important to, for the most part, give up alcohols and other things.

The problem that I see with this "moderation" interpretation of the precept is it is not in accord with clear sutta teachings, such as this one from AN 8.39:

Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Jechbi wrote:Where did you get the words "caused by" for your rendering? I don't see that in the Pali, but maybe it's implicit somehow?

In composite words the word-elements can have different relations between them, and Sanskrit and Pali grammarians developed a detailed categorizing of those relations. English is a far more analytical language with few composite words, so the relations between the elements have to be expressed in other ways. I'd say that "caused by" is helpful for expressing the relation between those elements in English.

In this debate there are two different aspects that should be kept separate.

The first aspect is the precept. The second is our personal views.

The translation and analysis of the precept text should be objective, based on an understanding of Pali grammar.

And the precept is very clear. It talks about abstaining from intoxication. The second you get intoxicated, you are breaking that precept. Whatever else you do - as long as you are not intoxicated - you are not breaking than precept. It's as simple as that.

Some may feel that the precept should be stronger, and they might wish to lay down a prohibition about taking that drink that may lead to intoxication. And that may be a quite sensible interpretation. But the precept as we have it, does not say this, and to twist the translation in order to make the precept say what we want it to say, is nothing but pious fraud.

Kare wrote:So what then does the precept say? It says: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness caused by beer and cider (or, alcoholic drinks).

This is the literal meaning of the precept. Not to abstain from the drinks, but to abstain from the condition of intoxication.

I'm skeptical about this translation of the traditional precept language. Maybe it's not just that sura and meraya cause pamada (which this translation presupposes), but rather that sura and meraya go hand-in-hand with pamada by necessity and are inextricably linked together, and that that reality will always be the thana from which to abstain? Which might read something like this: I undertake the training precept of abstaining from the condition of intoxication and carelessness and beer and cider (one unit, one thana). I don't know, I'm no Pali scholar, but my translation alternative doesn't appear to insert elements that aren't plainly there.

In any case, if discerning the true meaning of the traditional precept language is as easy as chopping up the root words and putting them back together with English translations, then I would like to know where the "caused by" part comes from in the translation offered in the quote above.

adamposey wrote:I think it's very important to, for the most part, give up alcohols and other things.

The problem that I see with this "moderation" interpretation of the precept is it is not in accord with clear sutta teachings, such as this one from AN 8.39:

Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants.

Kare wrote:In this debate there are two different aspects that should be kept separate.

The first aspect is the precept. The second is our personal views.

The translation and analysis of the precept text should be objective, based on an understanding of Pali grammar.

And the precept is very clear. It talks about abstaining from intoxication. The second you get intoxicated, you are breaking that precept. Whatever else you do - as long as you are not intoxicated - you are not breaking than precept. It's as simple as that.

Some may feel that the precept should be stronger, and they might wish to lay down a prohibition about taking that drink that may lead to intoxication. And that may be a quite sensible interpretation. But the precept as we have it, does not say this, and to twist the translation in order to make the precept say what we want it to say, is nothing but pious fraud.

Kare wrote:In this debate there are two different aspects that should be kept separate.

The first aspect is the precept. The second is our personal views.

The translation and analysis of the precept text should be objective, based on an understanding of Pali grammar.

And the precept is very clear. It talks about abstaining from intoxication. The second you get intoxicated, you are breaking that precept. Whatever else you do - as long as you are not intoxicated - you are not breaking than precept. It's as simple as that.

Some may feel that the precept should be stronger, and they might wish to lay down a prohibition about taking that drink that may lead to intoxication. And that may be a quite sensible interpretation. But the precept as we have it, does not say this, and to twist the translation in order to make the precept say what we want it to say, is nothing but pious fraud.

With respect, I think that is sophistry.

The reason abstaining from alcohol strikes me as a weird precept is that it's not normal for the Buddha to have outlawed something completely for his followers.

Kare wrote:In this debate there are two different aspects that should be kept separate.

The first aspect is the precept. The second is our personal views.

The translation and analysis of the precept text should be objective, based on an understanding of Pali grammar.

And the precept is very clear. It talks about abstaining from intoxication. The second you get intoxicated, you are breaking that precept. Whatever else you do - as long as you are not intoxicated - you are not breaking than precept. It's as simple as that.

Some may feel that the precept should be stronger, and they might wish to lay down a prohibition about taking that drink that may lead to intoxication. And that may be a quite sensible interpretation. But the precept as we have it, does not say this, and to twist the translation in order to make the precept say what we want it to say, is nothing but pious fraud.

With respect, I think that is sophistry.

Do you really think it is sophistry to strive for an exact and precise translation of the words of the Buddha?